From the way the budget wars are being fought, to the Global Warming denial wars, to the hatred of social health programs/insurance, heck to the general outlook on dealing with the future. ~ I'm starting to wonder if Tea Partiers aren't so fixated on their ideologic/religious certitude thing and that end-days thing, and reminiscing about how fantastic everything was in the good old days and if we can't bring them good old days back, by God lets just let it all go to hell and God. And if God keeps taking so much time making up his mind, by-gum, i mean by-god, we'll just have to help it along a little. It's written in the Bible can't be wrong.

This little rant was inspired by the latest story of oblivious Republican politicians in action.

With the nation’s attention diverted by the drama over the debt ceiling, Republicans in the House of Representatives are loading up an appropriations bill with 39 ways — and counting — to significantly curtail environmental regulation.

The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

Since you sceptical folks are probably curious about just what kinds of public, er... environmental, protections Tea Partiers could possibly have problems with here's a list of the amendments courtesy of our gov.

Yes, Republicans suck. So do Democrats, but for different reasons. Democrats are also trying to destroy the country but they are doing it by taking us down the same economic road as Greece, Britain, and several other European countries.

I dislike both parties. They should all be voted out of office and replaced with people who will run things my way.

Wen all employed Americanz are paying all their money to insurance companiez to maybe help pay for their cancer treatments and putting the rest uv the bill on credit cardz, we will be happy bekuz the Job Creatorz are only paying 5% tax. And to hell with the unemployed slackerz! If grandma can't lift a shovel any more, let her yooz a spade to dig her own grave! She shoud be praizing the GoPs for getting the dam byrokrats out uv her way, otherwize she'd be getting hassled about burying herself in the middle uv a park!

The Australian dollar has hit US$1.12. It was US$82c. Can you imagine even trying to make good margins on American government bonds at the moment? Why bother? Austrlian bonds are stable and we meet our debt on time. USA bonds lost their safety premium five years ago. What looney bank would buy a fresh bond in US currency anyway when less contracts are in USD! The discounting has already started.

I'd like to thank the Tea Party and Republicans for bolstering Australia's socialist economy and getting us in a position for more corporate raiding of USA stocks and assets. Thank you comrades.

The Australian dollar is currently the fifth-most-traded currency in the world foreign exchange markets behind the US dollar, the euro, the yen and the pound sterling

Wen all employed Americanz are paying all their money to insurance companiez to maybe help pay for their cancer treatments and putting the rest uv the bill on credit cardz, we will be happy bekuz the Job Creatorz are only paying 5% tax. And to hell with the unemployed slackerz! If grandma can't lift a shovel any more, let her yooz a spade to dig her own grave! She shoud be praizing the GoPs for getting the dam byrokrats out uv her way, otherwize she'd be getting hassled about burying herself in the middle uv a park!

What does that have to do with bankrupting the nation? i.e. when were spending all our money on interest so there is not any left to spend on insurance or a broom to clean up a mess .

You didn't answer the question.

Dead people digging graves ? When this happens would you call me, I'd like to see that.

If you want to balance the budget and restore fiscal sanity to America, then you must want to kill old people and destroy Christmas. Wonderful logic you got there.

What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

Ya know, sometimes I forget just how much fun this place can be, and then I come back for awhile and laugh my ass off.

Rrichar, kudos to you for making me reread this entire thread twice looking for your dead Xmas grandma. Good job hiding her. Glad to know your adult ADD isn't prohibiting you from making logical arguments. Well done.

Toddling away for another couple months ....

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

She woud sadly realize that its over, so dig the hole in the oil soaked dirt where the park that she played in az a little girl used to be, relying on The Company to fill it in since they woud want a fairly smooth path for the trucks and tractorz working on the ownerz new golf course in the back yard uv hiz mega mansion.

Unfortunately for granny, the chemicalz used to defoliate the area had a nasty side effect. Before the morning shift started, the mutated rabiez virus that had originally sickened her brought her back to screaming highly energetic quazilife. Breifly she thought 'I think I can shovel again! I feel ready for sum overtime! I could afford to buy sum new shoelacez!' But its not going to happen, kuz all she wants to do now iz bite bite bite!

Trajikly, little Billy, her 8 year old grandson wuz the 1st victim. He showed up early for work hoping to get the thru way leveled before the heavy traffic started. "Wut the hell iz that hole doing there, godamit!? Grandma?"

Too bad the CDC had lost so much funding; they may hav been able to stop the zombie apocalyps.

This is something I don't understand: weren't wars good for the economy in the past? The wars of the past decade certainly haven't helped the country's economy. Why is that? War, as some have said, is the U.S.'s number one export - so why don't we make money on it like we did before - or is it not true that wars were once good for the economy? Or is it just another of the indicators of the shift of wealth: less than 1% fight the wars, and only 2-5% profit from it? Or is it "post war" that was good for the economy, and these wars don't end?

War is a business; the direct beneficiaries are the large multinational engineering and construction companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Raytheon, etc, because they win most of the large defense contracts. War is important to those companies because otherwise there isn't much else available in terms of huge, long-term projects that sustain those companies. There are many other suppliers along the chain who also benefit from supporting the war industry. They are, essentially, hogs at the trough. Government is a spender, not an earner; government is the farmer dumping cash into the trough. We can divert into discussions of strategic geopolitics and other niceties that benefit governments by maintaining or changing the balance of power in the world, but those are tangential issues.

War, however, is not the only large producer of national debt. Too much of the economy depends upon government as an employer and spender.

I've no real ideas on how to solve the debt problem, but it seems obvious to me that there will be economic hardship for a lot of people. I've no confidence that the people running the country have any real ideas or any genuine interest in solving the problem, or that they are even capable of solving the problem even if they gave a damn.

Chachacha wrote:[This is something I don't understand: weren't wars good for the economy in the past?

2 thingz go rong now.

1. Not enuff death. In the old dayz, there were tenz uv thouzandz uv soldier casualtyz, and millionz uv civilianz in the war zone. Theze newfangled warz are doing a duble wammy: Soljrz are coming back and often messed up, so in need uv expensive medical support. So now we get a growing population uv unemployed and unemployable young men insted uv a herd thinning.

2. A rediculous escalation in executive pay at the defense contractorz, like everywhere else, with a flatline or even reduced pay for all the real workerz at the wepon factoryz PLUS way less jobz due to automation and overseaz outsourcing. In other wordz, no more armiez uv guyz in machine shops spending their pay on carz.

This is something I don't understand: weren't wars good for the economy in the past? The wars of the past decade certainly haven't helped the country's economy. Why is that? War, as some have said, is the U.S.'s number one export - so why don't we make money on it like we did before - or is it not true that wars were once good for the economy? Or is it just another of the indicators of the shift of wealth: less than 1% fight the wars, and only 2-5% profit from it? Or is it "post war" that was good for the economy, and these wars don't end?

No they were not. It is often mistakenly said the WW2 ended the depression. So lets look at how people lived during WW2? They grew victory gardens so they would have something to eat, could not buy tires for their car, could not build buildings, (no mettle), virtually everything was rationed.

Does that sound like getting out of a depression?

Harry Truman lost to Eisenhower because of a recession just after the war. i.e. we were still not out of it.

We didn't get out of it until the 50's.

How long did it take the stock market to recover? Almost 25 years, long after the war had ended. .

What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

Chachacha wrote: This is something I don't understand: weren't wars good for the economy in the past?

If the economy is manufacturing high cost weapons in large volumes the manufacturing economy is stimulated, tax raised on corporate turnover and everyone wins. Labour shortages absorb the unemployed.

More recent USA wars have simply used up the existing ordinance stock from the 70's and 80s without new manufacturing. Non capital costs such as "soldier's wages" have become a higher percentage cost of administering a war then in previous conflicts. The current USA "big ticket" items like the F-35 now have competition from Europe and Eastern Europe whereas previously other governments bought USA products following cold war alliances.

I guess it could be said that the USA promoted capitalism and it's version of peace around the world for 70 years. Now the USA has sort of achieved this goal it faces competition for the very same economies it converted.

I imagine an alternative universe whereas communism spreads to the USA and the Russians complain when "Red America" becomes a more efficient communist nation than Russia. I think the same thing is happening with the USA and capitalism.

rrichar911 wrote: No they were not. It is often mistakenly said the WW2 ended the depression. So lets look at how people lived during WW2? They grew victory gardens so they would have something to eat, could not buy tires for their car, could not build buildings, (no mettle), virtually everything was rationed.

Does that sound like getting out of a depression?

Richard....the war stimulated the USA economy and eliminated mass unemployment. The shortages were from the USA's economy working at maximum capacity.

Of course, a command and control economy can keep everyone employed and standing in line for rationed goods, but W.W. II certainly did not increase the output of the civilian economy. There was no Keynesian stimulation of the rest of the economy by massive spending on the war. The civilian economy shrank during the war, because mobilization for war is a zero sum game in a way that market organization is not.

War, as some have said, is the U.S.'s number one export - so why don't we make money on it like we did before - or is it not true that wars were once good for the economy?

Some of us did make money on the wars of the last decade, and it's not true that wars were ever good for the economy. If I rob you with a gun, whoever sold me the gun shares my good fortune, but this sort of economic reorganization doesn't end depressions.

Or is it just another of the indicators of the shift of wealth: less than 1% fight the wars, and only 2-5% profit from it? Or is it "post war" that was good for the economy, and these wars don't end?

Less than 1% fight wars and a small percentage profit, but a much larger percentage pay the price.

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Richard....the war stimulated the USA economy and eliminated mass unemployment. The shortages were from the USA's economy working at maximum capacity.

"Depression" = a sustained, long-term downturn in economic activity

The shortages were from an economy working at maximum capacity producing things other than the goods in short supply.

"Depression" describes falling output. The output that fell in the Great Depression did not rise during W.W. II. It fell further. Idle resources were busied "producing" things (designed to destroy other things) that were not part of the "output" that fell during the depression. The resulting "demand" from the warfare state did not stimulate a recovery in the output that had fallen earlier. Men with guns can always keep people busy, but simply keeping people busy is not what Keynesian stimulus is supposed to accomplish.

A true stimulus would have raised demand for civilian goods by employing only resources idled by the depression. The warfare state spending instead reorganized resources that the depression had not idled to "produce" things for the warfare state instead. It employed resources idled by the recession, but it employed them along with many other resources not idled by the recession, and all of these resources "produced" only the means of destruction, so everyone was poorer as a consequence.

If you want to be busily poor, a warfare economy can always do that for you.

Matthew Ellard wrote:If the economy is manufacturing high cost weapons in large volumes the manufacturing economy is stimulated, tax raised on corporate turnover and everyone wins. Labour shortages absorb the unemployed.

No. Everyone does not win. Consumption of goods chosen by consumers fell during W.W. II. This fact is well established. Some people idled by the depression became employed, but these people weren't starving before the war. Over sixty million people died in W.W. II. These people were hardly winners. Their economic output was lost, so consumers generally also lost.

More recent USA wars have simply used up the existing ordinance stock from the 70's and 80s without new manufacturing. Non capital costs such as "soldier's wages" have become a higher percentage cost of administering a war then in previous conflicts. The current USA "big ticket" items like the F-35 now have competition from Europe and Eastern Europe whereas previously other governments bought USA products following cold war alliances.

That's all true.

I guess it could be said that the USA promoted capitalism and it's version of peace around the world for 70 years. Now the USA has sort of achieved this goal it faces competition for the very same economies it converted.

This competition does not harm U.S. producer/consumers as long as they purchase abroad only from producer/consumers abroad with a comparative advantage. State interference with international trade satisfying rent seekers continually distorts perceptions of these advantages; otherwise, foreign competition is no different from domestic competition. No one says that competition between people in Rhode Island and people in North Carolina harms these people. We rather say that the competition benefits us.

I imagine an alternative universe whereas communism spreads to the USA and the Russians complain when "Red America" becomes a more efficient communist nation than Russia. I think the same thing is happening with the USA and capitalism.

If "efficient communist nation" weren't an oxymoron, Russia would still be a communist nation.

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Martin Brock wrote: Over sixty million people died in W.W. II. These people were hardly winners.

Wut woud the unemployment rate been like in the 40z and 50z if they hadnt died? Wut woud be the population now?

Wut about tek development? War, or at least gearing up for it, iz a great motivator for R&D.

I gess the deth benefit uv war can be questioned by comparison to other killerz, such az cigarretes and traffic accidents. By the lojik I'm using, it woud be a good idea to engineer fatality increasing featurez into carz and promote smoking vigorously.

Martin Brock wrote: Over sixty million people died in W.W. II. These people were hardly winners.

Wut woud the unemployment rate been like in the 40z and 50z if they hadnt died? Wut woud be the population now?

The unemployment rate would have been little different. The post-war baby boom might have been smaller, but that's debatable, and if it had been smaller, the smaller population wouldn't have much affected the unemployment rate either.

You might as well ask what the employment rate would be like now if the 200 million people added to the U.S. population since 1900 had never been added. The current U.S. unemployment rate is far too high, but it's not 80%.

Wut about tek development? War, or at least gearing up for it, iz a great motivator for R&D.

A dynamic market is also a great motivator for R&D, and people seeking profit in a market innovate to add value satisfying consumers. People seeking profit from a warfare state innovate to produce things that destroy other things.

I gess the deth benefit uv war can be questioned by comparison to other killerz, such az cigarretes and traffic accidents.

Individual smokers and drivers are best positioned to weigh the benefit they derive from cigarettes and cars against the cost of a shortened life, and of course, driving a car can also lengthen life.

By the lojik I'm using, it woud be a good idea to engineer fatality increasing featurez into carz and promote smoking vigorously.

But I don't remember the last time any car manufacturer, or even a tobacco company, advertised this sort of newly engineered feature. In reality, commercial innovators don't engineer features of this sort, because these features are not more profitable. On the contrary, a safer car is more attractive to consumers, and auto makers continually strive to sell safer cars for this reason.

Electronic cigarettes are much safer than conventional cigarettes and getting safer all the time. Far from creating this innovation, the state actively discourages it.

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Males overwhelmingly died in the war. Any demographer will tell you that the number of females is the limiting factor, and the long separation of so many males from females arguably had something to do with the boom, but like I said, it's debatable.

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Matthew Ellard wrote:If the economy is manufacturing high cost weapons in large volumes the manufacturing economy is stimulated, tax raised on corporate turnover and everyone wins. Labour shortages absorb the unemployed.

Martin Brock wrote: No. Everyone does not win. Consumption of goods chosen by consumers fell during W.W. II. This fact is well established. Some people idled by the depression became employed, but these people weren't starving before the war. Over sixty million people died in W.W. II. These people were hardly winners. Their economic output was lost, so consumers generally also lost.

That's right Martin. High cost weapons are not consumer goods. Chachacha asked about war economies so I talked about weapons manufacture, not consumer goods. May I also point out that of the 60,000,000 who died only 418,000 were American or 0.32% of the USA's population. I haven't even mentioned the capital expansion of WWII milititary production that was converted into consumer manufacture post war.

Matthew Ellard wrote:May I also point out that of the 60,000,000 who died only 418,000 were American or 0.32% of the USA's population. I haven't even mentioned the capital expansion of WWII milititary production that was converted into consumer manufacture post war.

If international trade is unrestricted, the number of Americans vs. Europeans is hardly more relevant to me than the number of Californians vs. Nevadans. Every person who died is someone who wasn't producing goods available for exchange with my produce. The U.S. contributed to the reconstruction of Europe, but if Europe had never been destroyed in the first place, all of the resources dedicated to the rebuilding would have been available to produce other goods. Ignoring these unseen goods leads to the broken window fallacy.

Retooling weapons manufacturing industry to produce commercial goods cannot possibly be more productive than creating industry to produce commercial goods in the first place.

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Matthew Ellard wrote:May I also point out that of the 60,000,000 who died only 418,000 were American or 0.32% of the USA's population. I haven't even mentioned the capital expansion of WWII milititary production that was converted into consumer manufacture post war.[/color]

The Western Allies were conservative in regard to military casualties. The Soviets used penal battalions as minesweepers. So there's an argument to be mad that the country that had the least number of casualties was the most rational one.

Matthew Ellard wrote:May I also point out that of the 60,000,000 who died only 418,000 were American or 0.32% of the USA's population. I haven't even mentioned the capital expansion of WWII milititary production that was converted into consumer manufacture post war.

Martin Brock wrote: If international trade is unrestricted, the number of Americans vs. Europeans is hardly more relevant to me than the number of Californians vs. Nevadans.

But is wasn't unrestricted was it? The Germans were sinking ships full of food and produce and the only way to stop them was by making weapons. You can't talk about war economies by ignoring the war.

Martin Brock wrote: Every person who died is someone who wasn't producing goods available for exchange with my produce. The U.S. contributed to the reconstruction of Europe, but if Europe had never been destroyed in the first place, all of the resources dedicated to the rebuilding would have been available to produce other goods. Ignoring these unseen goods leads to the broken window fallacy.

The Nazis were not a "broken window fallacy"

Martin Brock wrote:Retooling weapons manufacturing industry to produce commercial goods cannot possibly be more productive than creating industry to produce commercial goods in the first place.

That's great Martn but that's not what happened. You may as well say "If Japan hadn't attacked America there would not have been a war with Japan" but it did.

Matthew Ellard wrote:May I also point out that of the 60,000,000 who died only 418,000 were American or 0.32% of the USA's population. I haven't even mentioned the capital expansion of WWII military production that was converted into consumer manufacture post war.[/color]

Gawdzilla wrote:The Western Allies were conservative in regard to military casualties. The Soviets used penal battalions as minesweepers. So there's an argument to be mad that the country that had the least number of casualties was the most rational one.

I agree with that logic. Not a problem. However the USA had a specific advantage from geography. It only had 1,700 civilian casualties during the war. When compared to the 55,000,000 civilian deaths in other countries it is not surprising that USA postwar manufacturing was in an advantageous position.

Matthew Ellard wrote:But is wasn't unrestricted was it? The Germans were sinking ships full of food and produce and the only way to stop them was by making weapons. You can't talk about war economies by ignoring the war.

I don't ignore the war. Trade restrictions also destroyed wealth. This destroyed wealth was part of the cost of the war. This additional destruction hardly makes everyone a winner.

The Nazis were not a "broken window fallacy"

They were a broken window reality. The fallacy is that breaking even more windows along with them and then fixing all of the broken windows makes everyone a winner. It doesn't. Fixing the windows only makes everyone even poorer, compared with their wealth absent the war.

We didn't need a "cold war" with the Soviet Union to "stimulate" the economy either. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own fascist weight after its occupation of Afghanistan. The Japanese empire was similarly overreaching.

That's great Martn but that's not what happened. You may as well say "If Japan hadn't attacked America there would not have been a war with Japan" but it did.

I haven't disputed the history. We're discussing the costs of what happened vs. the alleged benefits. The controversial proposition is "war was good for the economy", not "war happened".

People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

Pyrrho wrote:I've no real ideas on how to solve the debt problem, but it seems obvious to me that there will be economic hardship for a lot of people. I've no confidence that the people running the country have any real ideas or any genuine interest in solving the problem, or that they are even capable of solving the problem even if they gave a damn.

This get's my vote for 'memorable quote of the thread'Hey but the politicians managed to raise the national debt ceiling, yippy

The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial